Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.orgNote: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To
ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500
words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail
address as you wish them to appear.]

I read Renata Russell's recent letter (Hi, Renata!) to you with great interest. As you know, I am a longtime advocate of completely open borders and of demolishing the welfare-warfare state.

As a consequence, I've been suggesting that, rather than annexing Mexico outright, as Renata proposes ("can of worms" hardly says it adequatelylook at the well-deserved problems this government's having in Iraq and Afghanistan), we simply offer U.S. statehood to any Mexican state that ratifies the Bill of Rights by a two-thirds majority.

I guarantee that this will start brushfires for the Mexican governmentwhich solidly supports La Reconquista and opposes individual rightsthat they'll be a couple of centuries putting out, and we will never have to hear any of their smarmy Marxoid rhetoric ("The land belongs to those who work it") again.

Going with the courtesy thing, let me first please
congratulate Renata on choosing to sign the new
covenant. I am glad it is the proudest day of her
life, as it is an important document. My good friend
Dennis Lee Wilson persuaded me that it was in my own
best interests to sign a few years ago, so I did.

Supposing that patience might be a better mode for
teaching than anger, let me then address her first
idea. She asks, "Why don't we annex Mexico?"

First, what does it mean "we"? We as in the folks
who have signed the new covenant? Those of us who
believe as Renata does that "under no Circumstances
shall we acknowledge any Liberty to initiate Force
against another Person, and shall instead defend
the inalienable Right of Individuals to resist
Coercion employing whatever Means prove necessary
in their Judgement" cannot participate in the force
application needed to annex Mexico. Rather, we
would have to defend the right of individuals in
Mexico to resist a coercive annexation.

Could Renata mean "we" the United States of America
should annex Mexico? But, again, how could she be
identifying herself with the coercive and brutal
government of the USA if she is sincerely for the
new covenant? The USA imposes taxation and all kinds
of regulation with deadly force on Americans, it
invades and conquers other countries such as Panama
and Iraq, and it imposes new governments in these
places when it is able. These are not actions in any
way consistent with the new covenant provided we each
acknowledge that the individuals who live in Panama,
Iraq, and Mexico are like us in having the stated
inalienable rights of sovereign self-determination.

I suspect that Renata is indicating an enthusiasm for
USA intervention in Mexico because of her next
sentence which seems to elaborate somewhat on her
plans: "Teach 'em English, put in a slightly less
corrupt government, etc."

There's no question that people in Mexico like to
learn English. A great many of them do so because
English is the language of airline pilots and ground
controllers, of international trade and commerce which
is 83% conducted in USA dollars, and of the Internet
which still boasts a majority of pages in English.
But, the new covenant, although it is presently seen
in English only, works just as well in other languages
such as Spanish and Nahuatl. (Indeed, it might be a
fun project to begin translating the new covenant
into other languages such as Spanish, Mandarin,
Nahuatl, Dutch, Russian, Arabic, maybe even French.)

Teaching people supposes that the students want to
learn. Governments have imposed language requirements
on subject populations from at least the time of
the ancient Sumerians. So, perhaps the idea is to
re-educate the people of Mexico and force them to
use English only? That sort of activity would be
coercive and thus inconsistent with the new
covenant's terms. Besides, people who are subjugated
and forced to use the dominant culture's language do
not forget their own, even if they have to teach it
to each other in hidden rooms for thousands of years,
as seems to have been the case for Hebrew, among other
examples.

Then Renata opens up the floor to discussion with
her question, "Or could this be a bigger can of
worms than I thought?"

Yes, Renata, it is, I think. For example, if the
people of Mexico resist, would you volunteer to be in
the army that occupies and subjugates their country?
How would volunteering for such duties be in any
way consistent with your agreement to honor the
sovereign self-determination of all individuals?

Mexico and Venezuela export about one-third of all
the oil consumed in the USA. We currently see very
high fuel prices because Iraq, previously a major
petroleum exporting country, has been in turmoil for
three years, ever since the country was occupied by
the USA military. It turns out that disrupting oil
supplies is easy and can be done with decentralized
(guerrilla or commando) forces whereas securing a
stable oil supply requires a lot of cooperation and
is more suited to a market economy based on consent
rather than a command economy based on coercion.

Moreover, the sovereign self-determination of the
individuals who live in Mexico is being felt there,
today. Consider the work in Sonora being done by
Ricardo Valenzuela and Eduardo Bours. My friends at
the International Society for Individual Liberty
wrote about Sonora recently:

So, please excuse my confusion. I try to have a
logical approach to discussing current affairs, so
holding two completely incompatible ideas in my head
at the same time is tough for me. Cognitive
dissonance, or having conflicting ideas imposing
themselves simultaneously, is sometimes a lot of
fun, especially when humor or sarcasm is intended.

But, Renata's words seem to be sincere, indicating an
innocent desire for more information about whether an
idea like annexing Mexico would be a good one. I do
think that Mexico is filled with sovereign and
self-determining individuals. It is certainly the
case that their existing government is corrupt, as
the article on Sonora mentions. But, the way to
move forward, seems, to me, to be working with the
individuals there who want to bring about change,
rather than imposing from outside changes they are
not in agreement with.

There is some prospect for a new nationalist and
socialist radical to be elected by a plurality vote
in an upcoming election in Mexico. While that would
be a bad thing (as the outcomes of elections are
generally bad for individuals), it is up to the
people who live in Mexico to choose for themselves.
It would be worse to impose a solution on them
against their will.

Meanwhile there are many places that seem to be
coming awake to the possibilities of individual
liberty. Why annex Mexico and force a new form of
government on them coercively, when there are so many
pleasant developments in other places? Free market
economies in Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Malta,
Dubai, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Alberta, Coast Salish
territories, and Wyoming point the way toward a
better tomorrow. Even New Hampshire has found in
its House of Representatives the will to resist
the evils of the Real ID act, although their state
senator John Barnes has proven to be a cowardly
and influential man.

My suggestion would be to avoid annexing the land
of other people. They tend to resist being
coerced. Instead, consider ways to make your home a
better place. Make plans to resist the coercion of
your own government. Find other free market and
individual liberty enthusiasts with whom to work on
activities such as free market money which may prove
to be the undoing of enormous coercive power by the
government of your country.

I was somewhat surprised to see another attack on
the Spanish language version of the "Star Spangled
Banner" in your magazine's pages. For the life of
me, I cannot find anything in the First Amendment
that prevents people from reciting the nationalist
anthem in any language they please, or singing any
other song to the same tune.

Maybe it is in that anti-flag-burning amendment that
I've not seen ratified just yet?

Alan Korwin doesn't seem to like Mexicans, Hispanics,
or muslims. It is always a pleasure to see racially
motivated hate speech in your publication, as further
evidence that freedom of expression is alive and well
and living in the Free Mountain West.

1. The First Amendment is a limit on Congress. It is not a limit on public sentiment. And it's not the language so much as the change of name and new lyrics (have you seen them?), and the goals of those behind the effort that's caused so much legitimate ire.

2. A website is not a magazine. [This one is!Editor]

3. Racism: A false charge of devastating power that can be used against an adversary when no legitimate arguments exist.

Gee, I have had the 2 at a time, unlimited for the month, program for
almost two years nowupgrading and downgrading from there as my
cashflow dictated. And as yet nobody has complained about my usage
rate, or threatened to charge me extra.

Of course, I do have a life outside of watching DVD's on TV . . .

Complaints like this remind me a bit of the "all you can eat" buffet
issue, where some idiots want to stuff themselves so full they are
sick . . . just because it's paid for already!